Skip to main content

About your Search

20120501
20120531
SHOW
Book TV 15
( more )
STATION
CSPAN3 80
CSPAN 64
CNNW 57
CNN 55
CSPAN2 52
FOXNEWS 47
MSNBCW 35
MSNBC 34
WHUT (Howard University Television) 25
KQED (PBS) 20
WETA 15
KRCB (PBS) 13
KCSMMHZ 11
CNBC 10
COM 8
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 653
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 653 (some duplicates have been removed)
in relations between russia and the united states there, have been many successes, including the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, cooperation on afghanistan, iran, and north korea. civilian nuclear power, and other areas. but there have been notable differences over syria, missile defense, human rights, enforcement of intellectual property rights and con dufkt elections last month. both president put spin and president obama have called for a deepening of economic cooperation between the two countries. the russian state duma its expected to ratify russia's succession to the wto in june or july. we expect 30 days after that, roughly, that russia will become a member of the world trade organization. for the united states, to take advantage of the new market openings in the russian market, congress must pass legislation to grant russia permanent normal trade relations treatment. the panel today will focus on prospects for improving relations with russia, and how the wto process has prompted russia to take measures to open its economy, to more international trade and investment. we had timed this pa
in the united states senate. he can start by putting americans to work by aproviding the keystone pipeline. he could do something about sky high gas prices by increasing american energy production and he could empower small businesses by cutting red tape and reempleg the regulatory process. he could deal with our crippling debt by encouraging democrats to pass a duj et. look, we want to work with the president, but it's about time that he gets serious, focused on jobs, focused on our economy and enough with the gimmicks. >>. [ inaudible ] >> doing a very good job. i do believe when it comes to fast and furious, we've got to get to the bottom of what happened and who's responsible. and the committee is doing that and i'm supporting their efforts. >> does that mean you are sea supporting -- he is in the process of right now writing a resolution you're supporting a resolution. >> i'm supporting in their efforts to hold those people in the department of justice accountable for what happened. the committee has work to do. they know what they have to do. they're pursuing a lot of unanswered question
to testify on the nato summit which the united states is proud to be hosting in chicago on may 20th and may 21st. with your permission, senator, i would like to submit my full statement and summarize my comments here. >> we appreciate and without objection the full statement will be in the record. >> i appreciate the support and the sustained recognition of the significance of this alliance, transatlantic security. this chicago summit will be the first on american soil in 13 years and the first ever outside of washington. in adang to the community to showcase our nation's great cities a symbol of nato to the united states. it is also an opportunity to underscore to the american people the continued value of this alliance and security challenges we face today. nearly 18 months ago the allies unveiled a new strategic concept for focus in the 21st century. building on the decisions taking in lisbon, the allies have three objectives. was a capabilities and partnerships and if i might, i'd like to say a few words about these. on afghanistan the isaf coalition has prevented that country from serv
, it david miliband, a former u.k. ambassador to the united states, and my former british colleague at nato. we have widespread support for this report. we are very grateful for their intellectual import and personal support, so that is what i wanted to say. at the order is for us to have a brief conversation, and then we will be happy to take whatever questions you have. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for that. first of all, it is important to state that the atlantic council as a council does not take a point of view on anything, because it would just be too hard to get all of the members to agree, but i do think one thing we all agree on is a strong alliance and an enduring alliance, and this report points us in that direction. let me ask probably just two questions, and i will go to the audience right away, and two of the more controversial points, clearly, what you're saying on germany is tough, and it is saying it to a germany where many germans would argue, are we not doing the most important thing we could possibly do for the future of europe right now, which is aiding
for the united states and europe. i might add is also a great pleasure to see the french ambassador here this afternoon. thank you for the support that you gave 2 brookings, and that your predecessors gave to fiona hill, was -- and she would be addressing you from this lectern at the date of this conference, but she was locked into a commitment in beijing. but i want to assure you on behalf of brookings and the united states and europe that this does not represent a strategic pivot on the part of the institution or the center to east asia. it has been our pleasure, and i hope of some contribution to the policy community in partnership with the heinrich boll's foundation to bring the conference to you on an annual basis. and i think it is particularly appropriate that we should have filled with us today. -- phil with us today. he is secretary of state of european affairs and is responsible for u.s. policy toward about 50 countries, as well as three key -- and i would add to that currently, someone challenged international institutions -- the north of montreal organization, the european u
of evaluative and educational process that does justice to this committee and justice to the united states senate ratification process, i announce today that i do not currently intend to bring the treaty to a vote before the november elections. we will have extensive hearings. we will do our due diligence. we'll prepare for a vote, but unless somehow the dynamic were to shift or change, we will wait until the passions of the election have subsided before we vote. my hope and expectation is that everyone will exhaust all avenues of inquiry and carefully consider the arguments on both sides. the contentious political season will now give us a chance to do what this committee has historically done best, which is not to politicize but to spend serious thoughtful time deliberating and debating all of the questions of substance. i'm pleased to see that the internet is already beginning to buzz with some discussion of this. but i will say up front there's a lot of misinformation and there's a certain amount of mythology, so i look forward to the process of clearing up the misinformation and the m
in the time i have been here. the french socialists are not strangers for the united states. they shouldn't be strangers. it has been true that it has been 17 years since the socialists were in power at the presidency. of course, they ran the government about a decade ago when spauo was in power. we have always had a very good relationship with any government that is there in france. i am confident we will have a good relationship with this government in france. we do have to see how this government is going to deal with the issues of the day. it's one thing to be campaigning. it is always something different to be governing. it is not me. it is not my job to predict how this will evolve. i will note that francoi francois hollande campaigned to keep france in the military structure. that was a remarkable statement after nicolas sarkozy to come back into the structure. i think france learned in the libya operation that being integrated in the command structure gives you a voice and say over what happens in the internal affairs of the military operation. that's important. you learn there ar
was that russia will also seek a predictable relationship with the united states. will adhere to the treaty on nuclear arms. and push for guarantees that the u.s. missile shield in europe will not be directed against russia. its that something that -- that he wants in writing or is that a trust but verify type of thing. or -- how, what does that mean? that statement? >> well we, have had a discussion with russia since -- since lisbon. where the nato allies agreed -- to, for the first time to deploy a -- a nato territorial missile defense system that would provide protection for nato european territories, populations and forces against a growing ballistic missile threat from outside of europe. that decision was not directed at russia. nor were the systems that were going to be deployed, capable of undermining strategic stability with russia or indeed undermine the nuclear deterrent of russia. we have been saying this for three years. we, we are, more than happy to put it in writing because we have already done so. would be happy to do it in the future. the second thing we did in lisbon was t
of international waters. 162 countries and the european community have ratified the treaty but the united states is not to read to the secretary of state hillary clinton and defense secretary leon panetta urged the senate to approve the treaty setting national security, job creation and oil exploration. they testified at the senate foreign relations committee. it's just under three hours. >> the hearing will come to order. thank you all very much for being with us today. secretary clinton, secretary panetta and general dempsey, welcome, we are privileged to have you here today. we thank you for joining us. it's a rare occasion in any committee but in this committee when we have simultaneously a panel of witnesses that brings together americans top diplomat, our country's top descends official and our nation's top military officer. your presence here altogether powerfully underscores the importance that you put on this issue. our committee shares the sense of importance which is why i hope without respect to party or ideology we begin an open, honest and comprehensive discussion about whether the
in history the united states needs latin america more than latin america needs the united states? now comcast your mind back -- cast your mind back to a decade ago, that question would seem absurd. the united states was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, the most powerful country economically, politically, militarily. why on earth would he need anyone, let alone a continent known for its economic crises, its political instability for having almost no global clout? well, how times have changed. and how used we have become to the fact of change. there's an old jewish joke i heard probably about 5000 times when i was growing up, and it's set in eastern europe in the 19 century in a period when borders were changing very rapidly. and the story goes that a woman is taking up washington in a remote area and the soldier rides up and he declares old woman, from this day forth, this man -- this land is no longer politically his imperial russian. she watches him go. thank god, i couldn't stand another polish winter. [laughter] thank you for laughing. i will pass those laughs on to my fat
, and comprehensive discussion about whether the united states of america should join the law of the sea convention. i want to underscore the word comprehensive. i've heard from countless military and business leaders for some period of time who believe it is urgent that we ratify this treaty. and i've also spoken with senators and some groups who oppose the treaty. i intend to make certain that the committee does its job properly and thoroughly. we will hear from all sides and we will ask all the questions as we begin the process of educational hearings on this issue. the first since 2007. the senate has seen a fair number of new members elected since then from both sides of the aisle. and our committee also has new members. so i think a thorough examination of the treaty is especially timely and relevant. some of us have had the opportunity in the past to the evaluate this treaty and even to vote on it in this committee. i am personally deeply supportive of it, and i believe it is now more urgent than ever that we ratify it because to remain outside of it is fundamentally directly counter to the bes
the united states and europe remain each other's best parkhurst and that when the american president or european leader looks how the public and says pudu one call when there's a problem of the person on the other side of the cleantech. my judgment is that is not going to change anytime soon partly because of the affinity of interest of the values and also there aren't other options and even though there are emerging countries out your waist count on our european allies and to rely on our european allies more than we can count on a cost-cutting. at the same time i think it's clear that we are at the cusp of a major historic transition in the global landscape in which the world that nato represents his losing the primacy it enjoyed the last 200 years and if you look at the share of global product represented by nato and i would include japan because they are a part of the western world since world war ii we've gone from roughly 70% of the global product to 50% and we are headed towards 40% and that says to me the big security question of the day are about how we are going to manage th
trade of the united states. and less than 2 point something of russian foreign trade. which suggests in turn that neither united states nor russia are to each other an important economic partner. just for example with our neighbor in ukraine our trade is 20% higher. with eu it is -- it is almost ten times hyper. -- ten times higher. so what it means, it means we are missing a good economic underpinning for political relations. and that leaves them still vulnerable to the politics of the day, to the crisises of the day, and, and unnecessarily so. we certainly have a lot of things that we have in common in terms of challenges that we face. and i, once drew a list of things that unite us. it appears much longer. we don't see eye to eye. and i would submit important for russia and hopefully for the united states. we have progress aid lot through the last three years. reset has brought a lot of new things, a lot of new way of doing things. the commission that was established by the two presidents seems to be producing new ideas, new avenues for, for cooperation, both between the
hamid karzai sits down for his only interview with me while in the united states. we talk about his personal relationship with president obama and even his personal relationship with mitt romney. stand by for that as well. >>> and the man sometimes nicknamed america's supermayor, has made a super gaffe. >>> i'm wolf blitzer in chicago. you're in the situation room. >>> but first, through my exclusive far reaching interview, i just completed only a few minutes ago with the afghan president hamid karzai, it's his only interview while here in the united states. we sat down only moments ago, and he spoke of president obama just minutes before the interview. the three leaders are here for a meeting in chicago. listen to this. >> no, we didn't have a three-way meeting, we had a three-way photograph taking. >> just a photo opportunity? >> why not a meeting? why not have a three-way meeting and discuss the most important issues facing afghanistan, pakistan and the united states. >> it wasn't for us to decide on the three-way meeting. the united states was the host and perhaps they saw it fi
in russia. whether united states gives us pn it tr or not, it is not something that we want to continue for several republics. first, we want americans to be our good partners. secondly, politically, it is one of the vestiges of the cold war mentality still with us and spoils political environment for the reasons which one cannot even explain today because the reasons why jackson/vanek appeared in the first place, how it was wrong even at that time, are no longer. so what is left as a vestige of the cold war still with us and reflections of a wider problem in our relations, and the cold war mentality that sometimes still persists as one of my american colleagues said to me we have victims of the post cold war hangover, which is right. very frequently we judge each other through this that had been developed and not through the commonality of purpose that we have today. it is extremely important. we want to work with the americans. we want to do business with the americans. we want you to be present in the russian market. we stand to benefit from partnership with american companies like o
front of the u.s. capitol, this is half an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of united states. >> detail, colors. present arms. [silence] >> detail, color guard, right shoulder, order. arm. >> please stand for the assessment of the colors like united states capitol police, and remain standing for our national anthem. [silence] >> detail, color guar guard. present arms. >> we will now have the national anthem by kathy williams. ♪ oh, say, can you see ♪ by the dawn's early light ♪ what so proudly we hailed ♪ at the twilight's last gleaming? ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars ♪ ♪ thro' the perilous fight ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched ♪ were so gallantly streaming t ♪ and the rockets red glare ♪ the bombs bursting in air ♪ gave proof through the night ♪ that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave ♪ ♪ o'er the land of the free ♪ and the home of the brave? >> detail, color guard. order, right shoulder, arms. >> please remain standing for the invocation. >> please join me in prayer. our gracious fathe
have china china assets from the border with north korea. the last thing the united states or china wants is some sort of confrontation that would somehow cause them to butt heads as they did in 1953, so i think any time there is a serious thought given to some sort of military action this is constantly at the top, not even the top even halfway up the escalation ladder this is constantly the concern that i think every u.s. president has had to think about seriously, so that is certainly one of the reasons, the china factor, and the other is that we, the united states went into iraq or afghanistan because it became the top foreign policy issue on which the head ministrations of a resolution. now, we can debate whether there was the right or wrong finger. many americans think it was the wrong thing. many americans think nothing was resolved and, you know, that's a completely different question. i think the plant for korea is i don't really think that the north korea issue has risen to that level of priority. it's been a crisis the you want to solve at least in the sense of preventing
in his speech in prague. the very first summit was held in the united states in 2010. two years later we gathered even more leaders together to focus on the seriousness of the risk of nuclear terrorism, the vulnerability of nuclear material around the world, the international cooperation it will take to secure that material, and prevent it ever coming into the hands of terrorists. >> so it is material as well as existing weaponry? >> and that is right. covers both sets of concerns. >> then you take it one level further. and know-how is involved. >> that is exactly right. >> in the united states, often we are more concerned nowadays -- is the correct phrase a suitcase bomb or something like that? >> improvised nuclear device. >> tell me the phrase again? >> improvised nuclear device. >> what does that mean, in my language? >> it's a pretty crude weapon, but it has probably a lot more material than our own warheads that we have built to go on the front end of missiles and travel reliably 3,000 miles. an improvised nuclear device would be bigger than a suitcase. the smaller you are, the mor
of real significance to the united states. to do that, we will dedicate 80% of our effort to four major cases. right now they are syria, kenya, north/central america and burma. then we'll have another eight to ten places where we can test new approaches or make a welcome difference by just sending the the right person at the right time. so far i think we're gaining traction in each of our major priority engagements. many of you are working in these places, and we realize that we won't know it all or know best about them, so we hope for your support. in syria we are providing a nontraditional surge to empower and unite a fractured, nonviolent opposition. as the secretary announced, that includes providing nonlethal assistance. we are also working with partners to set up an outpost for the internal opposition to coordinate and communicate with the international community. in kenya we are helping to develop plans to insure peaceful and credible elections a year before the vote. incidentally, kenya is one place where we've seen a potential model for broad cooperation and innovation. in nort
. as the president said, preventing a nuclear iran is in the interest of the united states. we have issued reports, and the most recent one was issued on and.ary 1 and it includes a distinguished panel of four democratic members of congress, admirals' and generals and also experts to area our last report supported the view that the best approached to this challenge is a simultaneous pursuit of a triple track policy, which is of diplomacy, tough sanctions, and a credible and invisible military threat. we also issued a white paper on each of those tracks. i want to highlight one recommendation on each of those tracks, and then i will change it over to mort zuckerman. and the military threat we believe the united states should boost the credibility of its military to air around us nuclear facilities, and we have spelled out how to do so. one element has been selling bunker busters' to israel. we do not advocate an israeli strike, but this will send a strong signal to tehran to negotiate in good faith, encourage other states that the alternative to supporting u.s. sanctions could be military conflict
. and in relation to the united states government, whether it is the clinton administration or bush administration or obama administration, they're probably better understood stood more like francement they're sometime as lined with the united states, sometimes o posed. postly they are just trying to stay out of the way and do their own thing. >> ann bremmer and steve coll when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following: . >> rose: additional funding provided by these funders:. >> and by bloomberg:. >> from studios in new york city captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: ian bremmer is here president of eurasia group, his new book every nation for itself, winners and losers in a g-zero world t paints a picture in a world in which no single power is able to take be the responsibility of global leadership. larry summers says everyone who cares about our collective future will need to carefully consider this book's impressive arguments. i'm pleased to have ian bremmer back at this table, welcome. >> hi, cha
geopolitics -- host: oil and gas production in the western hemisphere is booming, with the united states emerging less dependent on supplies from an unstable middle east. vens, nigeria, and mexico. host: southeast michigan. what are gas prices like there, dave? caller: very good. someone saying on your show that prices were falling for the holidays. that's not true here in southeast michigan, which people here like to drive a lot up north. we have a wonderful, beautiful up north. but the prices here average in the low $3.90's. they were a week ago in the mid $3.60, around there. for my employees, it's all the same for them. we're traveling 60 mile an hour round trips and that really hits the pocketbook when you're having to travel every day for week. i'll companies are certainly quick to bring the price down. thanks and have a good holiday. host: it's not our oil that we're talking about, it belongs to oil companies. new hampshire, john on our democrats line joins us. hi. caller: just one note i've acknowledged over the last few weeks. we have a caller on your show, but he was discussing
billion that would be royalties that would be paid to the isa as "pos opposed to the united states and of course go to the organization in kingston, jamaica for redistribution to the developing world. and this is the first time in history that an international organization, the u.n. in this case, would possess taxing authority over this country. now, i've heard the veto argument. discussed by one of the other members here. i think the secretary ritsch. it's really not too important to discuss that, because there are two entities that would make that determination. you have the council, the 36th-member council, the assembly, to make these decisions, but the point is, under article 160, it's going to cost us. well, let's see. yeah. under article 82, payments and contributions shall be made annually rp to all production at a site after this period's time. what we're saying, it's going to be paid regardless of where you think it should go or where you think it is going to go. the second thing i want to kov herb is the environmental and, we in this, for the ten years now have rejected i
the united states, have observed for centuries. given that we haven't, to date, had any major disruptions at sea, can you respond to that and talk about why it's -- why the sense now is that it's imperative to ratify the treaty? >> i can. the customary international law evolves and i can give you an example of something on the land domain in a moment. but it evolves. and it is subject to individual interpretations. so, threading this back to my earlier answer. the rise of new nations competing for resources, brazil, russia, india, china, the list goes on and on. their rise puts us in a position where unless we have this convention with which to form a basis to have the conversation about resources of the sort you're talking about, does cause us to be increasingly at risk to instability. and that's my job, instability. the secretary can speak eloquently about the economic h i issues, but i'm speaking to the security issues. so that is what has changed. and i'll give you the example of the land domain that i mentioned. we are party to the geneva convention. there were plenty of customary i
in the region. this supreme leader built an -- towards the united states. so if you are assessing american interests and looking at the region, you have to look at what iran's behave hear been towards american interests over time. i can say this, actually, even though you're asking me to assume a different persona, back in the 1990s when i was a negotiator in the middle east, we were constantly contending with iranian-inspired efforts to subvert the peace process through acts of terror. so there's a history here of being hofstile towards american interests. we have seen different iranian leaderships 24r50e69 leaderships at least in the forms of their presidents, talking about a dialogue of civilizations and the possibilities of trying to find ways of building bridges between the two sides. he was clearly not able to deliver very much. if anything at all. so i think we have to look at iran through a lens of hostility and threats. i think we also have to look at iran through a lens that, their behave hear, from time to time, been adjusted tactical. not strategically but tactically when, in f
the veto word is not used, also not used in the constitution of the united states but no one doubts the president has it. we have the ability to do it to the language that is there. that will become a bit more clear as we come forward. >> thank you, chairman kerry. i'm very glad that we're having this in today and i appreciate all of you for being here. senator webb and i sent chairman kerry and ranking member luber a letter back in april urging we move forward to consideration of law of the sea treaty and i'm grateful to your broad and searching and supportive testimony here today. when i was brand-new to the senate, one of the earlier meetings i took was with the then outgoing chief of naval operations. when i asked him what is the single most important thing we can do to help the navy over the next decade, he said without hesitation, ratify the law of the sea treaty. i was taken aback by the. given other budget priorities, operational issues, as it turned out admiral estimation of the importance of this issue is shared i'm stomach every living chief of naval operations not to men
't know is that the median income of lawyers in the united states is $62,000. they need to understand that before they incur $100,000 in debt. is there always room for another good lawyer? we need good lawyers. there always is. you have to ask yourself how much that you can afford -- how much debt you can afford. they have been watching too much "boston legal." you see $100,000 starting salaries. that may be for the top 10 students at the top 10 law schools. there were 30,000 graduates this year. what are the others going to do? there are jobs available and good jobs available, but we have to first let them know what to expect upon graduation. second thing we have to do is make sure we continue to have the profession look like our society. two spots of the examples. hispanic lawyers, less than 4%. 15% of our society. african americans come 8% come away under-represented. what we are doing in that regard as we have minority scholarships and a program where we put minority students with federal judges and state judges. we have a diversity center, which are the only four missions of the
the united states government was drafting the moral act and the homestead act of 1862 if they ever thought about the possibility of counter fit operations being established in the midwest and northern great plains.counterfit operati established in the midwest and northern great plains. and if so what were their plans in preventing such an event. >> i found no record of that being a concern it for tfor they department, which particularly in 1862 was, if you read samson chase's, the secretary treasury's diary, it becomes clear that he was running an endless effort simply to fund the next day's operations. or argue bring the past weably operations. day after day he comes in to his office to find million of dollars of unpaid bills on his desk and he'll complain about the fact that he has no idea how to pay them. and if they had been paid in cou counterfeit money, i think that would have been fine with him. most of the republican party was strongly opposed to the idea of fiat money, greenback money, to begin with. chase and lincoln were really driven to the wall by the fact that they had no alt
, this is in the security interests of the united states. over the past four years we of issued four report . the most recent was on february 1. as jason indicated, it included a distinguished panel of democratic members of congress, three retired generals and admirals, and distinguished foreign policy and energy experts. the last report reinforced the view we have always held is that the best approach to this crisis is a simultaneous pursuit of a triple track policy, which is diplomacy, tough sanctions, and credible, in visible military threat, and also, we issued a white paper in the past couple of months on each of those tracks. i will quickly highlight one recommendation on each of those, and then i will turn it over to mort zuckerman. sanctions, the progress of the nuclear program to determine the degree to which sanctions are forcing iran to slow down the clear development. we believe the united states should boost the credibility of its own and israel's military threat to iran as a nuclear facility. we have spelled out how to do so, and one element has been selling israel bunker busters' and ae
remember when wiki leex came out in the united states, right. >> rose: yes, i remember. >> i was in the emirates at the time and i was seated next to a minister. >> rose: you hang out in the emirates but i don't. >> i don't hang out in the emirates, that's not truement i was there for the weekend. >> rose: for a conference or something. >> some god forsakeen conference and i was sitting next to some minister from qatar without said to me that we believed that we actually leaked wiki leaks ourselves because it made us look so good. >> rose: there were those kinds of conversations in which diplomats were heard, unknowing to themselves, that they might be later seen and heard to everybody who could go on the internet saying good thing-- things and positive things and things that were in the interest of good things. >> indeed. and look, what did it reflect. what we learned from wikileaks, we learned that karzai was corruption. we learned that christina kirchner in arg stin-- argentina was considered by hillary clinton was considered to be emotionally unstable, shocking, right, sh
is that the united states as a individual nation and nato collectively as an alliance have to do long-term thinking about where it. wants to be in ten or eight years time. and outline the type of missions it envisions undertaking in the future and what capabilities will be required to undertake the missions. and kind of set some -- identify some kind of priority areas for the alliance knowing that most allies simply aren't going to be able to do everything every time. not every ally will be able to do everything from peace keeping to high intensity combat. we have a number of al thrice have reached that point and are starting to specialize and develop these capabilities if it's not coordinated you could end up with everybody. it's like a pot luck dinner. you don't have any main course when everybody brings desert. the summit going to try to start the alliance on the healthier course. but it's also going to start first and foremost with delivering on some commitments made in lisbon. you might remember, the alliance watched the lisbon critical caimentn'ts commitment. where the alliance identified ten
nautical miles from shore. the relevant area for the united states is probably more than 1.5 times the size of texas. in fact, we believe it could be considerably larger. u.s. oil and gas companies are now ready, willing, and able to explore this area. but they have made it clear to us that they need the maximum level of international legal certainty before they will or could make the substantial investments. and we believe create many jobs in doing so, needed to extract these far offshore resources. if we were a party to the convention, we would gain international recognition of our sovereign rights, including by using the convention's procedures and therefore, be able to give our oil and gas companies this legal certainty. staying outside the convention, we simply cannot. the second development concerns deep seabed mining which takes place in that part of the ocean floor that is beyond any country's jurisdiction. now, for years, technological challenges meant that deep seabed mining was only theoretical. today's advances make it very real. but it's also very expense of. and before any com
to that part of the world and to syria in particular, but to do this the united states needs to work in concert with our allies. we need to work in concert particularly with those countries in the united nations that form with us the p-5. russia i think shares the goal. i won't speak for sergei. i think i will let them speak. i think they share the goal of stability and an end to violence. we share a strategic vision of what's happening in syria, but we've had some disagreement on the tactics that we should take to bring that about. we are committed to continuing to do everything in our power to end the violence, to see an orderly succession take place. we have made very clear we think president asad's time has come and gone, and we hope very, very much through the dialog we've had with russia and with our other partners in new york, that we will continue to find ways to hasten that kind of change in transition so that the people in syria can live normal lives free from violence. >> i will add to that that we want violence ceased. we want political dialog of all the signs in syria to be engagin
as dark winter, where they theorized the placing of smallpox in three locations in the united states, major metropolitan hubs with air terminals, and within a year it concluded, this independent study concluded that there would be more than a million americans dead as a result of that. not a nuclear attack. not a chemical attack, but in effect a biological attack. and not a complicated one. not something that takes a lot of money or a lot of skill sets. imagine a million people -- imagine our country, if the goal of terror is to terrorize, to alter your behavior. imagine what the behavior pattern would have been in our country. there would be martial law. you'd have people guarding their state boundaries to try to avoid -- when i grew up, if you had smallpox or chickenpox or measles, they put a quarantine sign on your house. and you weren't allowed to go out. and no one was allowed to go into your house. this is back in the 1930s. you can imagine the whole country doing that. petrified. because of the lack of protection against smallpox. and that was very much in the president's mind
are not strangers for the united states. it has been 17 years since the socialists have been in power and had the presidency. they ran the government a decade ago. we have always had a good relationship with any government that is there in france. i am confident we will have a good relationship with the government in france. we have to see how this government is going to deal with the issues of the day. i will keep france integrated in command structure -- he will keep france integrated into the command structure. that was a remarkable decision by sarkozy. the integrated in the command structure gives you a voice and a say over what happens in internal affairs of the military operation. it is important. there are benefits from being fully integrated. i would suspect this is a benefit that will remain even if there may be differences of degree as policies go on. that is what elections are all about, to enable the people to express themselves and vote in new governments who will have to decide how they want to pursue policies. on the big foreign policy issues, i expect more continuity. >> he ta
of death in latin america. does the scary parasitic disease pose a growing threat here in the united states? >>> and a runway emergency in chicago where a giant cargo jet collides with an airliner. we'll bring you the very latest. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com >>> president obama telephones mitt romney, congratulates him for going over the top in the republican delegate count and over the top comments with supporter donald trump has created a distraction. you've heard trump question the birthplace in "the situation room," now romney is trying to move on. here's our national political correspondent, jim acosta. >> wolf, mitt romney has left las vegas, but donald trump is refusing to leave the campaign stage. >> americans are tired of being tired. >> now that he's crunched the number of delegates to win the gop nomination, it's victory lap time for mitt romney. get the checkered flag this new romney campaign video is all about the stars and stripes. >> we're united by one great, overwh overwhelming passion. we love america. we believe
the men and women who is died defending the united states in the first memorial day since the end the iraq war. the president laid a wreath at arlington national cemetery before saying all men and women who have fought and sacrificed their lives for the united states have the very same connection. listen. >> while their stories could be separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles, they rest here. together. side-by-side. row by row. each of them loved this country. and everything it stands for. more than life itself. >>trace: the president vowed to take care of the troop whose make him heavy long after their service is over and moments ago the president held a ceremony at vietnam memorial as we showed you to mark the start of a 13 year project to honor the 50-year anniversary of the vietnam war. and now to ed live at the white house. ed the ceremony at wall was a long time coming for many vietnam veterans. >> it was. and that's because of the fact that when many of the vietnam veterans came home those fortunate enough to come home because over 58,000 who died during that conflict,
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 653 (some duplicates have been removed)